What is the real purpose of DUI checkpoints?

[roughdraft274]

Legally, on paper, yes. Just try it and see how far you get.

If you or anyone you know has successfully done this, then I would suggest you/they were lucky and not seen doing it.

I've done it probably a dozen times back in college. Mind you that at no point was I very drunk, but if I had one or two beers I thought it better for myself to turn around rather than try my luck. And let them try to pull you over for not going through the check point. As long as you don't drive away recklessly or give them a good reason to pull you over, then if they do decide to come after you, anything you get busted for will be thrown out if you take it to court. By law they have to have signs leading up to the check point and a spot that you can turn so that the check point is deemed "voluntary".

 

[radcen]

I've done it probably a dozen times back in college. Mind you that at no point was I very drunk, but if I had one or two beers I thought it better for myself to turn around rather than try my luck. And let them try to pull you over for not going through the check point. As long as you don't drive away recklessly or give them a good reason to pull you over, then if they do decide to come after you, anything you get busted for will be thrown out if you take it to court. By law they have to have signs leading up to the check point and a spot that you can turn so that the check point is deemed "voluntary".

Checkpoints are as "voluntary" as income tax.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

What is the real purpose of DUI checkpoints?

The number of arrests is pretty small. The locations and times are advertised in advance (usually by court decree, probably not by choice). I believe they would catch more drunk drivers through routine cruising. I don't buy into "...if they catch just one..." when they could catch more. Plus, I don't agree with virtually abandoning the rest of the city to focus solely on that one stretch of street. So, why even have them?

My theory is that they're almost 100% PR. It justifies their budgets and justifies them asking for more money in budgets and grants. It gives LE a high profile to justify themselves to the public.

"Hey, look at us. We're protecting you, but there's still a problem out there and we need to squash that problem, so we need more money."

To piss off people who don't support them, naturally.

 

[Steelplate]

What people call "clearly a violation of the Bill of Rights" just slays me.

Driving an automobile is not an unconditional right. The Constitution of the United States protects the people from the government. Laws and regulations protect us from ourselves and others.

No....driving isn't an unconditional right. But freedom from search and seizure with the presumption of guilt is. Look...I am not defending drinking and driving, However, as a working musician who plays mostly in bars, these laws are killing the proprietors of these establishments(combined with the no smoking laws). When their customers go away...there's no extra money for things like DJ's, bands and especially an acoustic act like mine.

The DUI laws were fine at .10....that was a reasonable number of someone who should not be behind the wheel....then they dropped it to .08, and I noticed people weren't coming out nearly as much to hear a band....then the no smoking laws went into effect, and we often times played for 6-7 "regulars" with a couple of stragglers that came in for 6-packs listened for a bit and went home.

Now? They want to lower it to .05???

 

[MaggieD]

No....driving isn't an unconditional right. But freedom from search and seizure with the presumption of guilt is. Look...I am not defending drinking and driving, However, as a working musician who plays mostly in bars, these laws are killing the proprietors of these establishments(combined with the no smoking laws). When their customers go away...there's no extra money for things like DJ's, bands and especially an acoustic act like mine.

The DUI laws were fine at .10....that was a reasonable number of someone who should not be behind the wheel....then they dropped it to .08, and I noticed people weren't coming out nearly as much to hear a band....then the no smoking laws went into effect, and we often times played for 6-7 "regulars" with a couple of stragglers that came in for 6-packs listened for a bit and went home.

Now? They want to lower it to .05???

Yeah, I don't know about the .05. That sounds unreasonable to me.

I understand about your ox being gored, but if bars were more responsible? They probably wouldn't be such easy targets. Bartenders (except in chain or upscale establishments) consistently over-serve. When a patron leaves a bar and pukes on the sidewalk, they ought to make the bartender clean it up. And to think that same person goes out and gets into a car to drive home? Who can make excuses for that?? No one.

Driving drunk has the same social stigma that smoking does. No one is going to defend it. No one likes it. And who gives a flying **** about those that get caught? Time everybody realized that.

 

[Steelplate]

Yeah, I don't know about the .05. That sounds unreasonable to me.

I understand about your ox being gored, but if bars were more responsible? They probably wouldn't be such easy targets. Bartenders (except in chain or upscale establishments) consistently over-serve. When a patron leaves a bar and pukes on the sidewalk, they ought to make the bartender clean it up. And to think that same person goes out and gets into a car to drive home? Who can make excuses for that?? No one.

Driving drunk has the same social stigma that smoking does. No one is going to defend it. No one likes it. And who gives a flying **** about those that get caught? Time everybody realized that.

I get that, I really do. When you drink and drive you are rolling the dice of something horrific happening.

As far as bartenders go....

Drunk customer..."I'll have another!"
Bartender..."don't you think you've had enough?"
Drunk Customer...." I have a Designated Driver"
Bartender....bring him up here...
Drunk.Customer....Okey dokey!

Customer finds a "friend" to vouch for him.

So that would.be the bartender's fault?

 

[MaggieD]

I get that, I really do. When you drink and drive you are rolling the dice of something horrific happening.

As far as bartenders go....

Drunk customer..."I'll have another!"
Bartender..."don't you think you've had enough?"
Drunk Customer...." I have a Designated Driver"
Bartender....bring him up here...
Drunk.Customer....Okey dokey!

Customer finds a "friend" to vouch for him.

So that would.be the bartender's fault?

Actually, yes. The bartender has an obligation in most states not to over-serve -- regardless of whether or not someone says, "I'm not driving."

Almost all states have what's called Dram Shop Acts -- or civil liability laws -- that puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the host.

 

[radcen]

No....driving isn't an unconditional right. But freedom from search and seizure with the presumption of guilt is. Look...I am not defending drinking and driving, However, as a working musician who plays mostly in bars, these laws are killing the proprietors of these establishments(combined with the no smoking laws). When their customers go away...there's no extra money for things like DJ's, bands and especially an acoustic act like mine.

The DUI laws were fine at .10....that was a reasonable number of someone who should not be behind the wheel....then they dropped it to .08, and I noticed people weren't coming out nearly as much to hear a band....then the no smoking laws went into effect, and we often times played for 6-7 "regulars" with a couple of stragglers that came in for 6-packs listened for a bit and went home.

Now? They want to lower it to .05???

I completely agree with the part in red. And the government shouldn't be in the business of making the surrendering of rights a condition for participating in an otherwise legal activity that you are allowed to partake.

That being said, effects upon business should not be a factor when passing laws regarding public safety (though I do think .08 is fine).

 

[Steelplate]

I completely agree with the part in red. And the government shouldn't be in the business of making the surrendering of rights a condition for participating in an otherwise legal activity that you are allowed to partake.

That being said, effects upon business should not be a factor when passing laws regarding public safety (though I do think .08 is fine).

Well...then if you believe that, you must believe that guns must be confiscated for public safety....because the numbers of deaths related to driving under the influence and those killed by firearms are almost identical...about 10k/year. I am not advocating that....just following the "public safety" line of thought.

 

[radcen]

Well...then if you believe that, you must believe that guns must be confiscated for public safety....because the numbers of deaths related to driving under the influence and those killed by firearms are almost identical...about 10k/year. I am not advocating that....just following the "public safety" line of thought.

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion out of what I wrote. :neutral:

 

[Steelplate]

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion out of what I wrote. :neutral:

You said that businesses should not be a factor when it comes to.public safety...if you can come to that conclusion about bars/restaurants....certainly it should hold true with gun dealers and manufacturers.

 

[The Man]

What is the purpose of DUI checkpoints? Well it's mainly for revenue collection on things like not wearing a seatbelt, expired registration, etc., and maybe to get two or three drunks off the road.

 

[radcen]

You said that businesses should not be a factor when it comes to.public safety...if you can come to that conclusion about bars/restaurants....certainly it should hold true with gun dealers and manufacturers.

False equivalency.

What you're saying is that serving a drink that is consumed right there is the same as selling a weapon that is unloaded and unfired.

What the weapon purchaser does afterward on their own, away from the point of purchase, is their own responsibility. Neither the dealer nor the manufacturer loads the weapon (serves/pours the drink).

False equivalency.

 

[Steelplate]

False equivalency.

What you're saying is that serving a drink that is consumed right there is the same as selling a weapon that is unloaded and unfired.

What the weapon purchaser does afterward on their own, away from the point of purchase, is their own responsibility. Neither the dealer nor the manufacturer loads the weapon (serves/pours the drink).

False equivalency.

I beg to differ. Every gun seller and manufacturer knows that the possibility is there that they just sold an implement of someone else's death. They also know(especially in the manufacturing sector) that there have been weapons made and sold that committed real murders. Like I said earlier....I am not advocating the confiscation of guns...I am a gun owner...I was just playing Devil's Advocate.

A bartender selling drinks is just selling a drink. Drunk drivers don't seek out to wreck their cars or kill someone....they are irresponsible people who deserve to be held accountable for the consequences of their decision, but they are not murderers, in the classic sense.

Many people drive while what the law says is intoxicated and have never had an incident or even have been pulled over. They work hard all week and unwind on the weekends hurting no one but their own heads the next morning.

How about this?

Put the BAC back to .10.....UNLESS there is an incident(accident, sleeping behind the wheel of a parked car, etc)...then it can be as low as .05.

 

[radcen]

I beg to differ. Every gun seller and manufacturer knows that the possibility is there that they just sold an implement of someone else's death. They also know(especially in the manufacturing sector) that there have been weapons made and sold that committed real murders. Like I said earlier....I am not advocating the confiscation of guns...I am a gun owner...I was just playing Devil's Advocate.

A bartender selling drinks is just selling a drink. Drunk drivers don't seek out to wreck their cars or kill someone....they are irresponsible people who deserve to be held accountable for the consequences of their decision, but they are not murderers, in the classic sense.

Many people drive while what the law says is intoxicated and have never had an incident or even have been pulled over. They work hard all week and unwind on the weekends hurting no one but their own heads the next morning.

How about this?

Put the BAC back to .10.....UNLESS there is an incident(accident, sleeping behind the wheel of a parked car, etc)...then it can be as low as .05.

I don't advocate lowing the limit to .05, and would even prefer that it be restored to .10, so it's baffling to me what we're even quibbling about. My sole point is that effects on business shouldn't be a factor. *IF* public safety concerns are legit, they don't become any more or less legit depending on whether a business owner stands to make or lose money.

 

[Bob N]

Well there may be good news to this thing after all. :lol:

Update: DUI Checkpoints Net Many More Unlicensed Drivers Than Drunks

 

[SMTA]

To continually violate American's 4A rights.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I was told many moons ago that that is actually illegal. I forget the reasoning, though.

Well, if you found out that cops patrol your bar, you'll find a new place and drive them out of business. Also, coming out of a bar and getting into a car is not probable cause to search.

Something to do with the same legal definition of a speed trap? :shrug: Not sure.

Well, if you do not consent to a search at a checkstop and maintain your rights, you would get out of the check (unless you are dealing with a truly corrupt cop). The legality of the checkstop has to do with you consenting to a search, pay attention next time and you will see the need for your consent.

Any charges that stem from that should be defensible on technicalities regardless, but again there are also corrupt judges and lawyers, so your pleas may be ignored even if valid...

It's just we are so far from exercising rights that people actually buy into ridding those rights for political expedience on issues.

 

[Caine]

So the arguments can be summed up to "DWI Checkpoints are a violation of the 4th Amendment" (or should be) ? Am I right?

Even though I've participated in probably over 40 of these things as an officer, I can agree with that statement.

The thing with the .08... blame NHTSA, and more Federal Government basically forcing states to change their laws or revoke funding for transportation.

My problem with that is............... If the Federal Government has all this money to give back to states.... they are obviously overtaxing us in the first place.

As far as the Bars and police actions near them hurting their business....... If they didn't over-serve in the first place it wouldn't be a problem.

As far as the "theory" that three beers can put you over the limit...... that is horse rubbish. Every controlled drinking program I was able to witness or be a part of proved in my mind what it takes to get to .08.... even in as little as an hour.

I can elaborate more on the math of Alcohol impairment later if anyone cares to ask.

 

[BmanMcfly]

So the arguments can be summed up to "DWI Checkpoints are a violation of the 4th Amendment" (or should be) ? Am I right?

Yes, that's why there's always a part where you push for permission... Without permission it would be a violation of their rights... But if the person does not make an issue of it then that is the same as consent.

At least how I understand the legality...

Even though I've participated in probably over 40 of these things as an officer, I can agree with that statement.

The thing with the .08... blame NHTSA, and more Federal Government basically forcing states to change their laws or revoke funding for transportation.

My problem with that is............... If the Federal Government has all this money to give back to states.... they are obviously overtaxing us in the first place.

Ya, essentially, it's like syphoning off some of the excess... But then it also allows the federal government to control what state and local police do by holding that cash over your heads.

As far as the Bars and police actions near them hurting their business....... If they didn't over-serve in the first place it wouldn't be a problem.

As far as the "theory" that three beers can put you over the limit...... that is horse rubbish. Every controlled drinking program I was able to witness or be a part of proved in my mind what it takes to get to .08.... even in as little as an hour.

I can elaborate more on the math of Alcohol impairment later if anyone cares to ask.

Ya, I get the math, but the reality is that people handle that alcohol different from others.

Some people are better drivers with 4-5 drinks than another person might handle driving after 3 drinks, hell even better than some people sober.

I prefer the old standard of "reckless driving", if you are driving recklessly then you get pulled over and then dealt with individually rather than these chicken s--- dragnets where all the cop has to do is sit there an collect fine money.

 

[lawboy]

I've heard of dozens being caught in a single night at a single check point. Which amazes me when you consider that by law you don't have to pull up to these check points and you can legally turn around or turn to avoid them altogether.

Some states it provides "reasonable suspicion" to follow you and pull you over though.

If I am not mistaken, in a few it is defacto illegal.

 

[Ikari]

What is the real purpose of DUI checkpoints?

The number of arrests is pretty small. The locations and times are advertised in advance (usually by court decree, probably not by choice). I believe they would catch more drunk drivers through routine cruising. I don't buy into "...if they catch just one..." when they could catch more. Plus, I don't agree with virtually abandoning the rest of the city to focus solely on that one stretch of street. So, why even have them?

My theory is that they're almost 100% PR. It justifies their budgets and justifies them asking for more money in budgets and grants. It gives LE a high profile to justify themselves to the public.

"Hey, look at us. We're protecting you, but there's still a problem out there and we need to squash that problem, so we need more money."

Fundraising and to institutionalize people to random, warrantless searches.

 

[Hypersonic]

What is the real purpose of DUI checkpoints?

The number of arrests is pretty small. The locations and times are advertised in advance (usually by court decree, probably not by choice). I believe they would catch more drunk drivers through routine cruising. I don't buy into "...if they catch just one..." when they could catch more. Plus, I don't agree with virtually abandoning the rest of the city to focus solely on that one stretch of street. So, why even have them?

My theory is that they're almost 100% PR. It justifies their budgets and justifies them asking for more money in budgets and grants. It gives LE a high profile to justify themselves to the public.

"Hey, look at us. We're protecting you, but there's still a problem out there and we need to squash that problem, so we need more money."

Or.....

Wait for it........

Are politically motivated by MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driving

 

[CLAX1911]

What is the real purpose of DUI checkpoints?

The number of arrests is pretty small. The locations and times are advertised in advance (usually by court decree, probably not by choice). I believe they would catch more drunk drivers through routine cruising. I don't buy into "...if they catch just one..." when they could catch more. Plus, I don't agree with virtually abandoning the rest of the city to focus solely on that one stretch of street. So, why even have them?

My theory is that they're almost 100% PR. It justifies their budgets and justifies them asking for more money in budgets and grants. It gives LE a high profile to justify themselves to the public.

"Hey, look at us. We're protecting you, but there's still a problem out there and we need to squash that problem, so we need more money."

First off it's to cut down on dwi. A serious serious problem. Second it doesn't necessarily leave the city abandoned because must agencies have reserve officers and off duty officers doing them.

The officers aren't really interested in prosecuting and so forth that really isn't part of their job. That is the court system that does that, which is a completely separate entity.

Yeah, out very much is a way to let the people know they are out there doing their job. If you don't want the police funded the city will be chaos.

 

[CLAX1911]

Fundraising and to institutionalize people to random, warrantless searches.

They can't search your vehicle without a warrant. But you consent to sobriety testing by operating a motor vehicle on the road way. You can retract your concent but you have to do so.

Just tell them you don't want to preform a sobriety test. That is your right. Though if it is a "no refusal weekend" they have a magistrate on call that can fax a warrant to them on site or they have a magistrate on site.